> I mean, I guess it does make me curious how you should go about regulating a device like this.

That's actually my point. There's an interesting policy discussion to be had here, and instead of starting it, they just decided to smear a company.

> Like, if the metal fails and you have a horrible fall and break your hip and shoulder, that's pretty different from an iPhone that won't turn on.

> If this is only approved for 5 years, shouldn't the guy be replacing it rather than repairing it? And shouldn't health insurance be covering that, at least beyond the deductible or whatever?

Probably, but (to throw out a hypothetical alternative) you can also imagine a situation where e.g. inspection can tell him if the whole device actually needs replacement.

I don't have the answer here - I just know I'd like the discussion to revolve around the merits of the situation.